Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / July 2006

VERGON
Thanks for an intelligent reply to my post.
You may be interested in an excerpt from my monograph on QM:

We must, in composing a theory of the fundamental construction of the
universe, commence with a clear ideal.

This means we start at the very basic, most simple, yet comprehensive
level.

Being aware that the universe is in a great measure the way we see it
a postulate must exclude anthropological interpretation. Therefore,

                         THE POSTULATE

The objective universe consists only of matter, space between matter,
and the motion of matter through that space, the rest is
anthropocentric interpretation.

In elucidation thereof:

Man perceives matter, to quantify it he conceptualizes "mass".
Matter exists objectively, mass is a concept.

Matter resists motion or alteration of motion. Man perceives that as
"inertia" which in turn quantifies mass.

Matter moves with varying degrees of motion. Man compares all motion to
one used as a standard which is constant. This standard motion is
divided into arbitrary units. The transit of the standard through one
unit is designated as time. (The rotation of the earth is a standard
motion. One rotation is designated as a day {time} with arbitrary
subdivisions.) All other motions are then compared to a unit of time.
Thus, at base, time is the comparison of motions, nothing more.

The quantification of motion in terms of time is conceptualized as
"velocity". Ultimately this is a comparison of motions against the
standard.

The quantification of the motion of matter in terms of mass and
velocity
is conceptualized as "momentum", i.e., there is a simultaneous
determination of the quantity of matter and the quantity of motion it
possesses.

Matter moves and changes that motion by interaction. Man perceives
the rate of change as "force", i.e., the change of momentum with
respect to time. Collaterally he perceives "acceleration" as the change
of velocity with respect to time.

Matter interacts with matter forming an altered configuration.
Man regards that as "energy", ultimately energy is matter (mass) in
motion.

There is space between matter. Man perceives that and quantifies it by
arbitrary standards of matter. Thus is created the concepts of
"dimension" and "distance".

                             -<*>-

So we see that dimension, space, time, mass, inertia, momentum,
acceleration, force, and energy are all subjective interpretations by
man of matter and its motion through space.

xxein:  There is a generic and universal  relativity.  Einstein (et al)
didn't delve deep enough.  They all said that "this is good enough".

This reminds me (exactly) of trying to dig out a path for a vehicle
stuck in sand.  It is too much trouble to take one or two more minutes
(maybe ten more shovel-fulls out of 200).  And you get stuck again
after a few inches.  Here comes the expensive tow truck.  It, too,
under-asseses the solution and gets stuck itself.  I've seen such
happen so that there are three tow trucks.  Do you call that a simple
solution compared to ten shovels of sand?  And do you know that you
have the greater share the total bill?

Make sure you dig deep enough to understand all of the generic
relativity and not just settle for a/the shallow version.  If you
don't, you will find yourself in a ng such as this to argue and debate
over a shallow concept rather than a concrete physics.

-------------------------
we dont have to enter the question waht is driving a scientist or
innoavtor!
it might bwe whatever it could be
the test is
is it right and important or not
of course anyone has egoistic motivations to invest efforts in
developing something new
secondary motivations might be 'indirect egoistic'
ie if it will be good for me it will be good for my family - for my
counrty-
for mankind etc
and thank God that it was all laong history like that
egoism i saprt og the human nature and one of the best propelling
forces for action
and advance
yet trhere ias anothoer important featuere that must be attached to it
it is  HONERSTY ABOVE ALL !!
and that is the weak popint of too many people
because private intersets are for them above all
2 a note to the OP post
Vert is right that the 'establishment ' is afraied of innovations
because the existing 'knowlwdge' becomes in too many cases -
BUSSINESS
and in bussiness as in bussiness !! (looks sometimes as
in war like  war   !!  (:-))

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

FYI, you are stupid.
Androcles.

But of course.  He lacks the talent to play and avoids having to admit
that to himself by rationalizing it's a dumb game.